Burden of proofGeneral Statutes § 53a-12 (a)
places the burden on the state to disprove a general defense beyond a reasonable
doubt.

When instruction is requiredA defendant is entitled, as a
matter of law, to a requested jury instruction on a defense if there is
sufficient evidence of the defense. State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602,
618-19 (1991); State v. Havican,
213 Conn. 593, 597 (1990); State v. Fuller,
199 Conn. 273, 278 (1986). "A defendant must, however, assert a recognized
legal defense before such a charge will become obligatory. A claim of
innocence or a denial of participation in the crime charged is not a legally
recognized defense and does not entitle a defendant to a theory of defense
charge." State v. Rosado,
178 Conn. 704, 707 (1979). In State v. Baltas, 311 Conn. 786,
814-18 (2014), the Supreme Court refused to require courts to instruct the jury
on any theory of defense with a foundation in the evidence. "We are satisfied
that our law under Rosado, when combined with the requirement that trial courts
must adequately instruct juries on each essential element of each crime for
which the defendant is being prosecuted, adequately protects the defendant's
right to present a defense." Id., 818.

The standard for determining
whether the evidence is sufficient to entitle the defendant to an instruction
differs between general and affirmative defenses. A defendant is entitled to
have the jury instructed on any general defense "for which there is any
foundation in the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible." (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) State v. Havican, 213 Conn. 593, 597 (1990).
The defendant's constitutional right to present a defense "includes a proper
jury instruction on the elements of the defense . . . so that the jury may
ascertain whether the state has met its burden of disproving it beyond a
reasonable doubt." State v. Fuller, 199 Conn. 273, 278 (1986).

A defendant is entitled to a
requested instruction on an affirmative defense "only if there is sufficient
evidence for a rational juror to find that all the elements of the defense are
established by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Person, 236
Conn. 342, 353 (1996); State v. Small, 242 Conn. 93, 102-103 (1997) (same
is true regardless of whether defendant or state requested instruction).

Inconsistent defenses
"Generally, inconsistent
defenses may be interposed in a criminal case. . . . That a defense is
interposed which is inconsistent with the defendant's alibi theory does not
preclude an instruction as to that defense. . . . The fact that one
defense is on the theory that the accused did not commit the offense, as where
he relies on alibi, does not deprive him of the right to avail himself of other
defenses . . . . To compel a defendant to admit guilt in order to invoke a
defense effectively relieves the prosecution of proving his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt and frustrates the assertion of the defense itself and
undermines its policy." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted). State v. Harris,
189 Conn. 268, 273 (1983); see also State v. Folson,
10 Conn. App. 643, 649 (1987). A defendant is entitled to an instruction
on the defense of self-defense if the evidence warrants it, even if the evidence
would also support a claim of innocence because of an unintentional or
accidental shooting. State v. Miller,
55 Conn. App. 298, 301 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 923 (2000). "[A]
jury may be instructed on a requested defense theory, even if the defendant has
testified to facts that contradict the requested charge, if there is sufficient
evidence to warrant the instruction." State v. Person,
236 Conn. 342, 348 (1996).